But, not to be a sore winner here, I don’t think one of his reasons makes sense.

According to the press accounts, one of the last straws for Will was Trump’s “racist” comments about the “Mexican” judge who couldn’t be fair in his trial, because of Trump’s policies/remarks about Mexicans.

Romney lost 73 percent of the Hispanic vote; Trump is viewed unfavorably by 82­ percent of Hispanics and very unfavorably by 62 percent. Trump probably will receive significantly less than Romney’s ruinous 27 percent of this vote. And because of demographic trends and Trump’s motivating policies and insults, Hispanic turnout probably will be significantly larger than in 2012, as the white percentage of the electorate continues to shrink.

Now look at what I put in bold. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say that George Will was saying that Hispanic people would predictably act in a certain way on something as important as voting for president, because of Trump’s insults of Hispanic people.

Is George Will allowed to associate with himself, after writing such a racist comment in a major newspaper?

P.S. For those who will say, “Gee Bob, why do you and your crew love Trump so much?” check out this tweet. Does it look like we’re pining for a spot in the Trump Administration?

90 Responses to “George Will Comes to His Senses”

I think it’s worth quoting a comment I left on Gene Callahan’s blog on the Mexican judge issue:
gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2016/06/mexican-american-support-for-trump.html

“Gene, most of the people I’ve seen criticizing Trump’s comments about the judge basically make the following argument: “Donald, if you’re saying that a judge will treat you unfairly simply on the basis of the fact that he is of Mexican heritage, then there are two possibilities. Either you are conceding that your statements and policies are so hurtful to Hispanics that you cannot possibly expect fair treatment from a Hispanic judge, which says something awfully bad about you. Or you are saying that there is some other reason why you don’t want a judge of Mexican descent, which opens the door to the possibility that you don’t want a Hispanic judge for racist reasons.” Now you may disagree with their argument, but that’s the argument they’re making.”

Well, Keshav, if you make a ridiculous argument once, there is no reason not to make it twice!!

Of course, Trump never made any argument that this judge wouldn’t judge him fairly “simply on the basis of the fact that he is of Mexican heritage.” (Wow, what a wordy way to say that!) He said, “This judge IS NOT judging me fairly: perhaps, since he is Mexican(-American), and is a member of a group that advocates for illegal Mexican immigrants, that is why.”

There really is no “argument” the people forwarding this meme are making: they are embracing the Clinton “Trump is a racist” persuasion tactic, without any “argument” at all.

Gene, Trump did not simply say, “This judge is biased against me, so he should recuse himself. And if I were to guess, the source of his bias is probably that he’s of Mexican heritage.” He made statements like, “He’s a Mexican and I’m building a wall, so obviously he should recuse himself.” And that is the sort of statement that opens him up to the criticism I outlined above: “Donald, if you really think that your statements and policies are of such a kind that the fact that someone is of Mexican heritage is reason alone to require that they recuse themselves, then you are conceding something awfully bad about your statements and policies. Or if that’s not what you really think, then it suggests that you have other, possibly racist, reasons for not wanting Mexican-American judges.”

And it’s not simply a persuasion tactic: I expect that the vast majority of people making this argument would say under truth serum that Trump’s Mexican judge comment implies that he’s a racist.

““Donald, if you really think that your statements and policies are of such a kind that the fact that someone is of Mexican heritage is reason alone to require that they recuse themselves, then you are conceding something awfully bad about your statements and policies.”

Why? He could believe that his statements are perfectly fine, and at the same time believe that this judge won’t judge him fairly based on the comments. Those aren’t mutually exclusive.

” I expect that the vast majority of people making this argument would say under truth serum that Trump’s Mexican judge comment implies that he’s a racist.”

No doubt: they’ve fallen for the Clinton persuasion tactic, and sincerely believe it! But we might note first off that “Mexican” is not a race, and that Mexico in fact contains people of all races, hey?

Gene, if a comment was prejudiced against Mexicans, I think it would almost always be racist. For instance, suppose someone said “All Mexicans are rapists.” (Note: I’m not accusing Trump of saying that.) In that case, I think it is a reasonable inference to say that they are racist against Hispanics, don’t you?

Last I checked Mexican was a nationality, not a biological race… but anyway Trump never made a comment “prejudiced against Mexicans”. He made a comment about illegal immigration in as much as Mexico is not sending their best.

This of course should be obvious, no country sends away their best and brightest.

“Last I checked Mexican was a nationality, not a biological race…” Yes, and my comment fully took that into account. That is why I said that a comment which is prejudiced against Mexicans is almost always racist against Hispanics.

“This of course should be obvious, no country sends away their best and brightest.” By the way, I should note that Trump means the word “sends” literally; he later clarified that he was talking about the Mexican government sending their criminals here to avoid the cost of incarceration.

“Gene, if a comment was prejudiced against Mexicans, I think it would almost always be racist. ”

1) Mexico is not a race!!!!

2) Trump has never said anything against “Mexicans.” What he in fact said was that Mexican ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS tend not to be the best people from Mexico. And I think it is pretty obvious that this is correct: the Mexicans who do the best “in society” are:
1) Already doing fine in Mexico, and don’t need to leave; OR
2) Have a skill that can gain them legal entry to the US.

Do you really believe that the illegal immigrant population of Mexico is the “cream of the crop”? How in the world is it “anti-Mexican” to note that the people willing to risk death and imprisonment to get out of Mexico are probably not the “high achievers” there?

“Mexico is not a race!!!!” Yes, and I didn’t say it was a race; if I thought it was a race I would not have said “I think” and “almost always”, I would just be asserting a tautology. I was saying that if someone were to make a comment which was prejudiced against Mexicans, such a comment would almost always be racist against Hispanics.

“Trump has never said anything against “Mexicans.”” Well, we obviously we disagree about the judge comment. But in regard to the illegal immigrants comment; if Trump had simply said that illegal immigrants tend not to be the cream of the crop of the Mexican population and left it at that, I don’t think he would have lost sponsors. But he went further and made it sound like most illegal immigrants are rapists. (“And some, I assume, are good people.”) That is the part that people found so objectionable.

Keshav, just so you don’t think I’m being unreasonable, let me state that I am NOT basing my defense on Mexico (or Islam) not being a race, and hence someone who says bigoted things about Mexicans or Muslims not being racist.

I get what Scott Adams / Gene are saying on that score, but I think that is needless quibbling.

In contrast, I am quite serious, and think it’s important, to say that someone who says, “A guy whose background is from Mexico might not be fair in judging me, since I’ve said things that anger a lot of Mexicans” is thereby saying something racist.

The fact that you constantly have to add this PC crap about not liking Trump is evidence that identity politics has completely infiltrated the Libertarian and Conservative political factions in the US this election year. True, it’s always been there for the Beltwaytarians, but it’s really hilarious to watch these people shriek about Trump’s racist comments when they say virtually nothing at all about Hillary’s war record.

Exactly how is it that a guy who says mean things about Mexicans is categorically more horrific than a woman who vigorously agitated for the Iraq war and several since while sitting in positions of power (Senate, Sec’y of State)? Isn’t war supposed to be literally the worst thing ever? How is fire bombing children in Iraq not racist?

It makes literally no sense from a (consistent, logical, sensible) libertarian POV, so I just chock this particular phenomenon up to moral posturing and the (sad) desensitization to war people have gone through over the last 16 years.

In fact, nothing in Trump’s campaign has ever mentioned race at all. “Mexican” is not a race, nor is “Muslim.” The “racism” meme is simply the most effective marketing mechanism the anti-Trump people could find.

This seems like a very technical argument. Trump has, at the least, repeatedly engaged in national origin and religious discrimination (Mexico, Islam), which is closely akin to racism. Also, indicating that persons of a certain race or national origin predictably will decline to vote for a racist does not strike me as analogous to noting that a claim that a judge cannot perform the fundamentals of his job — being impartial — because one of the litigants has insulted his indirect national origin is a racial trope, i.e., “these people are all much more concerned with their race/religion than with maintaining the proper ethical standards of their work.” This notion often arose with regard to Jews and Catholcs in the first half of the 20th century.

Finally, on an unrelated note, the idea that the FBI declined to indict Hillary Clinton because Janes Coney was afraid of physical retribution from the Clintons is tinfoil hat stuff, and doesn’t belong on this blog.

Also, indicating that persons of a certain race or national origin predictably will decline to vote for a racist does not strike me as analogous to noting that a claim that a judge cannot perform the fundamentals of his job — being impartial — because one of the litigants has insulted his indirect national origin is a racial trope, i.e., “these people are all much more concerned with their race/religion than with maintaining the proper ethical standards of their work.” This notion often arose with regard to Jews and Catholcs in the first half of the 20th century.

John, since this was the whole point of my post, can you elaborate? Unless you’re saying that voting for president is a trivial thing like picking a flavor of ice cream, as opposed to something important like “doing your job,” then I don’t see how this works. (And I don’t think George Will thinks voting is irrelevant and trivial, otherwise he wouldn’t make such a big deal about telling people he’s leaving the Republican Party.)

Bob, in your capacity as a judge, you’re not supposed to let your political preferences concerning the defendant sway you. If you believe that Trump has made racist comments against your ethnicity, that should not influence your decision. But as a voter, it’s absolutely fine if you choose to vote against Trump because you believe that he’s made racist comments against your ethnicity.

To take a more extreme example, a black judge would be expected to treat a KKK member fairly, but a black voter can certainly vote against someone because they’re a KKK member.

Bob, in your capacity as a judge, you’re not supposed to let your political preferences concerning the defendant sway you. If you believe that Trump has made racist comments against your ethnicity, that should not influence your decision.

Right. No one is denying that Trump said the judge wasn’t going to do a good job.

What I am denying is that he was a racist for saying so.

He wasn’t saying, “Mexicans are lazy, and I therefore think this judge won’t do a good job.”

He was saying something that is perfectly plausible–something so plausible that George Will himself cited it–namely that people who are Hispanic might change their behavior in light of Trump’s stated policies towards Mexico.

Am I anti-man if I say that the FBI director was biased in his Clinton ruling? Would you say, “Bob, FBI directors aren’t supposed to be influenced by political power etc. So it was very rude and discriminatory for you to suggest such a thing.” ?

I think Keshav basically answered the way I would have. To take an example, hypothetically if I as a black man decide I will not vote for someone professing racist views because of concern about what he or she might do if in power, that is not a racist decision, so much as it is a weighing of the candidate’s positions with an eye toward what is best for me and people I am worried about.
Pointing out that rational members of an ethnic group would likely behave this way is not racist either, as far as I can tell. Obviously, it is not suggesting something pejorative about a person based on race.

But if I accuse a judge of failing in his or her duty to be impartial because of his or her race or national origin, that IS potentially racist, because it ascribes a likelihood of misconduct (failure to be impartial) to the judge’s race or national origin.

I don’t understand this reasoning. In one case, a person votes against a candidate who says overtly racist things out of concern that the candidate will do harm to the voter or others that the voter cares about, because the candidate strongly implies he will do so.

In the other case, the candidate claims he cannot get a fair hearing from a judge of Mexican descent because, despite the judge’s sworn oath to be impartial, the judge will not be able to control his improper response to the candidate’s anti-Mexican comments.

In one case, the response to racism (not voting for the racist candidate) is a non racist defensive response to racism; in the other case, the claim that the judge cannot control himself because of his strong identification with his national origin is in fact a classic example of national origin discrimination.

In short, I’m not seeing the argument that this is an example of circular reasoning.

Finally, the argument that national origin discrimination is not race discrimination may be at least conceivably true but appears to me to be a distinction without a difference.

And OF COURSE, as a judge you’re not “supposed to” allow personal bias against a party to a suit influence you. But are you really trying to claim, Keshav, that personal bias NEVER HAS swayed a judge?!

“But are you really trying to claim, Keshav, that personal bias NEVER HAS swayed a judge?!” No, of course not. I was just trying to explain to Bob why John’s comment does not imply “that voting for president is a trivial thing like picking a flavor of ice cream”. I was explaining why John’s comment is consistent with viewing voting as just as important and one’s duties as a judge.

Talk about identity politics. Unless the *reason* for doing so is literally something like “too many Arab babies!”, how it isn’t racist is the same way the fire bombing of children in Dresden wasn’t racist.

Why would a broad generalization only be valid when the number it describes is 50% + 1 of the group it’s a predicate of?

If I say “North African Muslim men who’ve recently emigrated to Sweden are rapists” (which, given the statistics, is clearly true) why would you think that means I’m making a claim that at least more than 1/2 of them are? Rather than what I’m obviously saying; that there’s a much greater tendency than what we in the west would expect.

If you say “North African Muslim men who’ve recently emigrated to Sweden are rapists” You are saying, not, what you apparently meant to say “[A lot of] North African Muslim men who’ve recently emigrated to Sweden are rapists” instead you are saying “[All] North African Muslim men who’ve recently emigrated to Sweden are rapists”

I can confidently predict about 90% of the black vote will go to the democratic party candidate any given election. Guess I must be racist. In other news, water is wet, and I am bigoted against hydrogen-oxygen polygamy for noting that.

Bob, I am not contradicting Andrew_FL. Andrew_FL is saying that In this situation, the fact that Trump is prejudging an individual using a generalization is what makes his comment about the judge racist. That is not to say that is the only possible thing that can make a comment racist.

Wow! Trump has been dealing with this judge for THREE YEARS now! What makes you want to keep making up the fact he is “pre-judging” him?

I’ll tell you what: you are hypnotized. You have been hypnotized using well-known persuasion techniques to believe that Trump is racist, so now everything you see confirms that.

And that is why you keep making these ridiculously counter-factual claims: when someone in the room shouts out “green!”, you think it is completely normal to jump up and take your clothes off, and can’t understand why someone else can miss how “obvious” it is that that is the right response.

What did he say? Look this is a goofy argument we’re having, in the grand scheme, because I’ve always thought Trump was a boor. But it’s like when people say “Martin Luther King was a plagiarist” and then others say, “Hey! Stop being racist!” and I make the minor point that that’s technically not a racist thing to say. It’s tacky perhaps and makes you a jerk if you just bring it up to annoy people who like his speeches, but it’s not racist.

And so the same thing with Trump. Suppose the FBI director had been Hillary Clinton’s brother, and Trump said he thought the decision was biased. Would that make Trump an enemy of siblings?

“Trump extrapolated from demographics to stereotype and prejudge an individual.”

Come on, Andrew, this isn’t hard! Trump did not “prejudge” this individual! He’s been dealing with him in court. He has lots of EXPERIENCE with this individual. He did not say, “ALL Mexican judges are biased.” He said, “THIS Mexican judge is biased.”

The whole charge is completely idiotic, and only gained any traction due to confirmation bias.

In case anyone cares: The reason I’m being anal about this is that I think people throw around the term “racist” way too much, such that it loses its potency. So you are making it easier for actual racists to roll their eyes when they get called out about legit racist things.

You can say Trump is a jerk for saying a Mexican judge (and there’s nothing wrong with that term–I’m an Irish guy, duh) would be biased against him because of Trump’s policies regarding Mexico, but that doesn’t make him a racist. Maybe he’s a racist for other reasons, and I certainly thought the “rapist” stuff qualifies as racist comments, but the stuff about the judge wasn’t racist.

Why couldn’t it be that he is acknowledging that he has seen that a lot of Mexicans don’t like his policies? Why isn’t he allowed to acknowledge that a lot of people think he is racist without agreeing with them?

Gene, he has said multiple times things like “He’s a Mexican, I’m building a wall, so of course he should recuse himself.” The clear implication of that is that all judges of Mexican heritage should recuse themselves in his case.

Bob, due to America’s racial history it’s often hard to think through situations like this, only because we’re primed to sympathize with the black man. However, if a white guy shot a black guy and he objected to an all-black jury, that would strike me as a racist objection.

Not how I read it at all, guys. I assumed Keshav meant he thinks about the situation and to avoid bias, asks what if the races were reversed. I assumed he meant, his answer to the question with races reversed was also his answer to question with original races.

Yes, exactly. It’s like when Bill Clinton criticized Sista Souljah’s comments by saying “If the races were reversed, you’d think it was David Duke talking.” It was a way to get people to see the racism in Sista Soulah’s remarks, since due to America’s racial history we’re more accustomed to seeing racism of whites against blacks compared to racism of blacks against whites.

I didn’t say I treat anyone differently. I just said that I find it harder to imagine a black guy being racist against white people, only because we’ve had for so much anti-black racism in this country, including slavery, Jim Crow, and racial dog whistles, compared to anti-white racism. That’s why, when determining whether anti-white racism is going on, I find it helpful to see what my reaction would be if the races were reversed.

Try this one out for size, Jim: we are going to set your salary for next year in a weird way. We are going to choose 100 black Americans at random, and 100 white Americans at Random. You get to pick either group, and then we will pay you the average salary of that group.

Heh, I’m not sure why you responded since I’ve been on your side in all my comments here.

This is a false analogy. I’m not denying the reality of aggregates (look above about my comment about North African Muslim immigrants to Sweden).

For example, African American aggregate IQ is 10-15 points lower than white Americans. I work in tech. If I’m are interviewing someone for employment after they passed the resume and phone screen, I’m not going to consider the racial stock from which they came in my assessment of their worthiness for the position.

However, if I’m forced to make a decision based on random sampling of a population, how can I do more than comply with a simple application of the central limit theorem?

You point to this later example as if it invalidates my attitude in the former.

No, it’s not. His objection would be that an all white jury is more likely to biased against him. Are you denying the existence of racism and saying a black person would be irrational to worry that an all white jury might not be in his best interests.

I think you’d be a terrible lawyer that no sane person should ever consider hiring if that is how you see things.

Yes, an all-black jury should have no problems with impartially judging a white guy shooting a black guy. Now if there’s specific reason to believe that one or more of the jurors have some kind of racial prejudice, that might be grounds to object. But I see no reason to believe that the average black person would be biased.

Well, I agree that an all black or any other color type of jury should have no problem impartially judging anything. But just because they should doesn’t mean they will.

But that’s not what I asked. I asked if you’d tell the white guy to not have any objection to having an all back jury in your scenario. Because that seems like the most absurd thing you could say to him. It’s not racist to worry that an all black jury is more likely to be racist against him than an all white jury or a mixed jury. That’s just how it is whether it is the way it should be or not. Sorry racism does exist

Suppose a black man is accused of shooting a white police officer. His defense lawyer makes it clear to the press that he doesn’t want his client to face an all-white jury.

A jury should be randomly selected and represent a cross section of society. If it looks like everyone in the jury is remarkably similar to everyone else in that jury, then you would have to question the selection process. This doesn’t particularly apply to race, it could be questioned on sex, age, social status or anything.

Bob, i see where you are goingwith that because it is truly a racist remark, however- i think you go wrong in claiming that the average person thinks voting is that important. I think most people subconsciously know that their vote matters little, and tend to vote on one issue.

My thought when this first came out was that – in this particular case – Trump was not being a racist.

If an African American defendant were to say “This judge is white so I am worried that he will not give me a fair trial”, he might be right or wrong about that assumption (at least with that particular judge), but I would not say (and the press would not say) that the defendant is being racist.

How is it that suspecting someone else of being biased is being racist? Why exactly is it that we worry about the makeup of a jury and trying to have a jury of our peers?